Washington Archery Coalition position on SB 5127

[elkangel]

Here again I ask you all to consider the following type of organization to help save our natural resources, Form,

Washington Wildlife Congress Concept
Currently the Fish and Wildlife Committee, established in 1994 is a Governor appointed committee established to address Fish and Wildlife issues.    In addition the nine member committee has not been able to keep up with the growing demand on fish and wildlife issues.   In a State with great natural resources we need to make sure we are aware of and can address the concerns of every county, community and citizen of the State fair and equitably.  This is a proposal to establishment a Wildlife Congress to insure concerns are better addressed.

The Elected County Commissioners in each of the 39 counties would appoint a WildLife Congress Member to a 4 year term.  The 39 members would meet two times a year.  At the first meeting they would elect the nine member Fish and Wild life Commission from their membership.   The Fish and Wildlife Committee members would be as follows,  3 members for 1 year term, 3 members for 2 year term and 3 members for 4 year term.  The nine member Committee would then meeting monthly or as needed to conduct the Committees business.   The members would be the Counties liaison between the Citizens of the County, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Their responsibility would be to keep their community and elected officials informed and up to date on Fish and Wildlife issues.  They would also be responsible to bring up concerns from their local citizens, groups and organizations in their county regarding Fish and Wildlife Issues,  addressing them through the Fish and Wildlife Commission and or through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 
 
Establishing the Wildlife Congress would change  the hiring of the Fish and Wildlife Director to become the responsibility of the Governor, and not the Fish and Wildlife Commission.  This would bring more accountability to the Director through the elected leadership of the State.

The establishment of the Wildlife Congress would have little to no financial burden on the State.  It would greatly increase the communication of Wildlife Issues to all communities of the State.   It would allow the people to have more of a local voice on issue that effect them and their community.  Finally, it will allow a better platform for the State to develop better use of our natural resources and create more green industries in wildlife recreations, while protecting them for our future generations.

Thank you for taking time to read this proposal, please send comment regarding this concept to:

It is not perfect but offers all the States citizens a more equal say in our fish and wildlife concerns.

[Coldeadhands]

I disagree.  Its doesnt give us anymore respresentation than it does now.   By separating the Director from the representatives of the people, you effectively skew, who is in charge of the WDFW.  It weakens the commission and strengthens the political favoritism at the expense of the resource.   The Senate should have no say in the confirmation of the commissioners or the director.   Our resources are not going to the highest bidder, who put his pro commercial senator in charge.   The Governor is accountable to the people.   While they complain about lack of expertise, instead of creating a larger commission or adding more staff, to do the leg work, the plan tinkers with planned obsolescence and throws up barriers to expertise.   No one would consider changing state senators from 6 years to distribute between 6,4, and 2 years.  The US Senate is divided in portions of the Senate that is up for re-election.   They are staggered for political sake.  Not science.
The turnover set up in that plan would be disasterous for fish and wildlife.   The fish and wildlife commissioners should be about science not politics.  Being appointed by the commissioners of the county has nothing to do with science and everything to do with climbing the ladder and paying for representation.   We cant seem to find enough Senators in this state, who believe in Science and Conservation versus Allocation.  I dont see an improvement.  The public at large is disinterested and only pays attention when budget matter or seasons change for the worse.   I dont want Boss Hog appointing anyone.   Fisherman and Sport groups and NOT their lobbyists, should find and determine whether and individual has the credentials to serve as a commissioner.  Most of the people serving on the commission are giving back to the resource, by not demanding high wages.  If these people are not taken seriously, they wont bother.  Then ask yourself how much the state will pay these same types of individuals to do the research and watch it be rejected by a pro allocation director. 

[NWPanhandler]

 Blake brought out the Striker amendment about noon. Here it is if you wish to read it. In summary it is not acceptable it does exactly what we conveyed to Blake we could not accept. It throws out the existing commission and has the Governor reappoint and transfers most of the policy, allocation and compact powers to the Director seriously changing the rule making and policy power of the commission and the Director would serve at the convience of the governor even though the commission would provide three names for the Governor to pick a Director. At this time our lobbyist is contacting the various committee members. If you reside within any of the HANRC member’s district or you know those who do please take the time to urge them to hold 5127 in the committee. We appear to have substantial support in opposition to this bill in the committee but we should continue to urge the committee members to stand firm in opposition to 5127.

The committee will consider the Striker tomorrow.

Authored by Ed

Please feel free to forward this to anyone who may be interested.